What the Supreme Court said
By Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. (articles ) | June 28, 2005 2:33 PM
Much has been said and written in various media trying to explain how the Supreme Court justices decided to ban the Ten Commandments from inside two Kentucky courthouses, but said it was okay for them to be outside the Texas state capital. If you read our CWN story, you can see one attempt at explanation.
But what most explanations miss is that this isn't an example of all nine justices deciding one way on one case and another way on the other. In reality only one justice flip-flopped between the cases, causing them to go in different directions: Stephen Breyer.
This is where our current state of anarchy caused by an overactive judiciary has brought us. The entire controversy and question over the place of religion in the public square should not be left up to nine un-elected lawyers with no accountability. In the extreme situation, we have one man who has become the arbiter of the Constitution and religious freedom for our entire nation.
If this doesn't scream for reform of the judiciary and a return to what the Constitution really envisioned for the Supreme Court's role, I don't know what does.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our March expenses ($27,446 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Brad -
Jun. 29, 2005 11:17 AM ET USA
The courts MUST be reformed. It is not enough to hope for "conservative" judges. Constitutional review must be limited. The will of the people must be demanded. As Scalia said in his dissent, the court will only go as far as it thinks it can before the people no longer accept the court's legitimacy. The time has passed for Christians to accept most of these decisions as legitimate.
Posted by: -
Jun. 29, 2005 10:34 AM ET USA
No, shrink, I don't think that's not the solution. If a law does really violate the Constitution, it shouldn't take a unanimous court to rule it so. The problem is that so many current judges see themselves as legislators and they ignore the text and original intent of the Constitution. I do think Mark Levin's suggestion of giving Congress the ability to overrule the Court with a 2/3 vote is a possible solution to the problem. This would place a check on the court's unfettered power.
Posted by: shrink -
Jun. 28, 2005 9:54 PM ET USA
How about a constitutional amendment that requires a unanimous decision from the court to overturn existing state or federal law?
Posted by: Vincit omnia amor -
Jun. 28, 2005 4:22 PM ET USA
"If this doesn't scream for reform of the judiciary and a return to what the Constitution really envisioned for the Supreme Court's role, I don't know what does." well, others things do scream for "reform"...and also to Heaven for vengence; like, Roe v Wade (millions murdered) for one.
Posted by: Vincit omnia amor -
Jun. 28, 2005 4:19 PM ET USA
Amen to that!